swansont Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 when a doctor injects a needle or vaccum into the mother's womb to annihilate that embryo' date=' they do try to defend themselves. they understand the logic of flight and fight, even if they are only a few tiny cells big. [/quote'] As Sisyphus said, this is off-topic, but it's also highly questionable. Start a new thread, perhaps, and defend the idea that an embryo (or stem cell) "understands" anything. As for the veto, it's all part of the pattern. It's more than just deciding that the political ramifications are more important than the scientific ones, it's that the science is misrepresented in doing so. The science being skewed to supposedly support a position, or the science that opposes it being attacked in an intellectually dishonest fashion. In this case, the lie about how many viable stem-cell lines were available to government-funded scientists when the original ban went into place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 sysiphus I don't think there's anything wrong with stem cell research, like I said in my first post in this thread.... My point is that a number of people in this thread have said things like How I agree with you 100%. I find it absolutely absurd to veto stem cell research that could save billions. I mean, sure it involves a bit of sacrifice, but that is a principle that goes for many things. Sometimes you need to sacrifice to allow for the better. You gotta sacrifice those poor, cute mice to further our scientific knowledge. I mean, Bush is willing to sacrifice people for some war in Iraq when he cannot sacrifice embryos for a wondrous technology. What's his problem? that kind of logic is what I'm critisizing, the idea that sacrificing a few for the good of the many is a very very poor bad idea, as has been proven by history countless times in the past (see my first post) PS don't you love it when people don't read your whole post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silkworm Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 For those who got a chance to listen to Bush's comments about it he said, "I refuse to use children for spare parts." He's a kneejerk moron and degrading science into loaded, nonsensicle emotional terms. Hopefully this bill will come up again after November and his veto won't matter. Only 2.5 more years, and hopefully the biggest demographic in America will make better choices. Just go ahead and add all the people this research may help to his enourmous overall body count. Culture of life, my ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Normally I'm ok with a lot of what Bush does. But this he is, well, I won't say it here. Or if I did it would be more *s than letters! What an idiot. The first thing he vetos and he makes the wrong decision. 5614 for president! Loadsa science reasearch for great pay and no speed limits! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 5614 for president! Loadsa science reasearch for great pay and no speed limits! What a great idea, 5614, kill off your voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Kill? No. If you can't drive properly then you can go in the "slow lane" but if you can drive properly then you don't need to be limited to 70mph on a massive empty motorway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Kill? No. If you can't drive properly then you can go in the "slow lane" but if you can drive properly then you don't need to be limited to 70mph on a massive empty motorway! 70? eeks. On LI, the posted speed limit is 55 mph... though nobody follows that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walrusman Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 I'm curious, did he ever admit his motives were religious ? He says it's about morality and "being conscious", but that's a diversion, without his religious beliefs, he wouldn't see those cells as "living beings". What do you mean by that? I thought he was talking about the embryos, which would be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 the rule is 15 over, so 55 turns into 70, 65 to 80, but alot of the roadways that allow 65 were really designed to be taken at 100, so really the increase in speed would lower the number of accidents due to a lack of awareness by the driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Yeah exactly, no one follows these unrealistically low limits. Recently when I was visiting unis I went on some longer trips. On motorways where there are road works (1 lane closed) the speed limit is reduced to 40mph and further more they "average speed" cameras, which record your number plate and time you between points. This meant you had to keep to the speed limit. If you don't want to travel at the speed limit you don't have to. But for those who want to and feel comfortable they should be able to. There's somewhere in Europe, maybe Germany(?) which has speed limit free roads, only the big roads, I don't know if they are the equivolent of motorways... but whatever, I like the idea. Especially on roads with many lanes, you can have people driving at 70mph on the inside and people who wanna do 100mph should be allowed to do so. So back to the point: 5614 for president! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Interesting article in today's Forbes about how research "abounds" in spite of the lack of federal funding. http://www.forbes.com/technology/2006/07/21/stem-cell-research-cz_kd_0721stemcell.html Although it does suggest that many representatives still fail to understand the scientific issues in play here: Lost in the news of Bush's veto of stem cell bill was the fate of a separate bill sponsored by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) to encourage the National Institutes of Health to fund research of stem cells that are not embryonic. The Santorum/Specter bill passed the Senate but did not get the two-thirds vote needed in the House on Tuesday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 the german autobond has no speed limits, its just like any other limited access road, except you can go as fast as you want. lucky for me america still refuses to videotape our roads Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Interesting story today about how the EU is going to fund embryonic stem cell research. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/24/news/union.php One of the things that I thought was interesting about this is that they had to work out a compromise to appease a group of Roman Catholic nations that was opposed to this on religious grounds. One of the compromises was a ban on "research that involved destroying human embryos for the procurement of stem cells". How exactly that's different from what Bush has been requiring I'm not exactly clear, but I'm sure there are some differences and I'm encouraged by the EU's decision. But I do think this goes against the popular leftist notion that this is purely an American problem, or that it's just the right wing that is opposed to this research (that wasn't even true in this country). You know me, I just love to point out flaws in partisan arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walrusman Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 It's important to bear in mind that this is how democracy works. A sizable portion of American citizens are opposed to this issue. It's not our way to bludgeon them into cooperation, with unpopular laws or controversial court decisions. Our way, our preferred way, is to win over hearts and minds through public discourse, education and debate. Who is "our" in this case? From what I've seen, it IS the american way to come up with a new law everytime someone doesn't like something or is "offended" by something - popular or not. I so wish it was our way to pursue changing the hearts and minds of americans rather than augmenting our law books over and over again. If I had a nickel for everytime someone started a sentence with "They need to make a law against that....." I'd be partying on a yacht full of 20 something's at my feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 or that it's just the right wing that is opposed to this research (that wasn't even true in this country). It isn't? Have any liberal demoncrats voted against it? If so, why? My first suspicion of anyone voting against it is simply that their home state/area is heavily religious and even if they're liberal, they need to appease their populace. It's important to bear in mind that this is how democracy works. A sizable portion of American citizens are opposed to this issue. It's not our way to bludgeon them into cooperation, with unpopular laws or controversial court decisions. Our way, our preferred way, is to win over hearts and minds through public discourse, education and debate. They why do we have the courts? The purpose of the courts is to prevent the majority from infringing upon the rights of the minority, no matter how popular such infringement may be. IMHO, this stem cell issue crosses that line: those who oppose it are denying research into life-saving cures for *everyone*. I feel it should be handled like animal testing: if you're opposed to it, you can turn down the medicine/treatment, but you have no right to deny me access to the treatment. While I agree it would be *nice* if it became the majority opinion and such, I'm under no delusions about the religious right's ability to spread lies in order to further their causes and skew the debate. Personally, I suspect what'll happen is that some other country will make various astounding medical breakthroughs, we'll import those, and once people start getting replacement limbs and organs grown in the lab, opposition will evaporate. Nothing is as predictable as self-interest. However, my view of politics and human nature aren't exactly optimistic. In fact, I'm about as pessimistic about both as it's reasonably possible to be without being emo. Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In My Memory Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Edit: Misread CPL Luke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 IMM read my posts. I never tried to draw any comparisons between holocaust victims and stem cell research. not once. I was critisizing a comment made earlier in the thread that went something like doesn't bush realise that in order to progress a few have to be sacrificed. that's paraphrased because I no longer have the inclination to properly justify myself in order for someone else to misinterpret a single post in the thread and then post something like the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In My Memory Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Luke, that's paraphrased because I no longer have the inclination to properly justify myself in order for someone else to misinterpret a single post in the thread and then post something like the above. Oh dear Please accept these cookies as a token of apology. *** bestows cookies *** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPL.Luke Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 mmm.. delicious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 It isn't? Have any liberal demoncrats voted against it? If so' date=' why? [/quote'] Yup, on the basis of religion. Good examples of this may be found quite often in the highly religious African-American community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walrusman Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 religion is cool when you're trying to start a cult and get chicks...other than that, religion ruins everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 Yup, on the basis of religion. Good examples of this may be found quite often in the highly religious African-American community. So, while not strictly along partisan lines, would it be fair to say that the opposition is essentially the social conservatives? Mokele Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 We could haggle about whether the typical pew-sitter at Ebenezer Baptist Church is a "social conservative", but even if they are then I would hardly characterize them as "right wing", which was my point. It's a religious/denial-of-science/miscomprehension thing, not a "left-vs-right" thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
padren Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 We could haggle about whether the typical pew-sitter at Ebenezer Baptist Church[/url'] is a "social conservative", but even if they are then I would hardly characterize them as "right wing", which was my point. It's a religious/denial-of-science/miscomprehension thing, not a "left-vs-right" thing. Doesn't the religious/denial-of-science/miscomprehension element of our society have a lot of political weight due to ties to via their support for the Republican Party? I agree that it is not a "classical left vs classical right" thing, since these are more religious issues than about the core ideaologies of the right and left wings, but the right wing in this country has given people with these views a lot of clout in exchange for their political support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walrusman Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 It's a religious/denial-of-science/miscomprehension thing, not a "left-vs-right" thing. Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one too. I mean, sure there are a handful of liberal religious folks against this research, but the major majority are right wing republicans. But hey, I agree with you about 90 percent of the time which is more than I agree with my wife... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now